1. - These two revision petitions have been filed under section 115 C.P.C against the order dated 2.5.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Ajmer camp Kishangarh in Civil Suit Nos. 54/2009 and 57/2009 whereby the applications moved under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C have been dismissed.

2. The facts for the disposal of the present revision petitions are that plaintiff-respondent M/s R.K. Fabrics, Subhash Colony, Madanganj, Kishangarh District Ajmer through its proprietor filed civil suits Nos.54/2009 and 57/2009 in the trial court for recovery of the amount against the appellant and pro-forma respondent stating, inter-alia, therein that the plaintiff supplied power-loom cloth to the appellant under various bills. The power-loom cloth was delivered at Ahmedabad. On account of non-payment of money and for other reasons, it became necessary to file the suits. The cause of action arose as the cloth was purchased and money due was not paid at Kishangarh. It was also stated that as per the terms and conditions of the bills, all the matters were subject to jurisdiction of Kishangarh. A prayer was made to decree the suit. The defendant appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 C.P.C in both the suits with the prayer to reject the suit on account of total lack of territorial jurisdiction and also for the reason that the suits were filed without paying adequate court fee. It was stated in the application that the delivery of goods was made at Ahmedabad and payment in relation to some of the bills was also made at Ahmedabad, therefore, the trial court was not having territorial jurisdiction. The respondent non-petitioner filed reply to the application and it was, inter-alia, stated that the goods were delivered at Ahmedabad under the orders of the appellant and the same were received also. The learned trial court after hearing both sides, finding that it is a disputed question of fact as to whether the appellant came at Kishangarh and placed the order himself or order was placed through agent at Ahmedabad, therefore, this matter requires to be decided after the evidence is led by both the sides but in view of the order-form dated 7.2.2007 wherein it is stated that all disputes are subject to jurisdiction of Kishangarh, therefore, the appellant cannot deny complete exclusion of jurisdiction of Kishangarh court and rejected the applications. Hence, the present revision petitions have been filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the material available on the file.

4. It has been the contention of the learned counsel that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff did not state in the plaint the place where the order was placed and since delivery of the goods were made at Ahmedabad, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected/returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper court. It has further been contended that merely on the basis of condition printed either on the bills or on the order-form that dispute will be subject to jurisdiction of Kishangarh court will not exclude the jurisdiction vested in the court situated at Ahmedabad. It is also contended that the trial court has committed illegality in placing complete reliance on bills/ order-form as if they belong to the respondent/plaintiff. It is also contended that the trial court is not required to proceed in the matter unless the question regarding territorial jurisdiction is determined first as a preliminary issue for the reason that if the issue is decided in favour of the appellant then there is no need to try other issues.

5. On the other hand, it has been the contention that the present matter is governed under the provisions of the Contract Act in as much as that by placing order with the respondent-firm and acceptance thereof completes the contract and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the con